Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline

Tue Sep 3 03:45:47 2019

Citations:

Bluebook 20th ed.

Crystal H. Weston, Orenthal James Simpson and Gender, Class, and Race: In That Order,
6 span style='font-size:13px;'>Hspan>span style='font-size:10px;'>astings span
style='font-size:13px;'>Wspan>span style='font-size:10px;'>omen's L.J. 223 (1995).

APA 6th ed.

Weston, C. H. (1995). Orenthal james simpson and gender, class, and race: In that
order. Hastings Women's Law Journal, 6(2), 223-232.
ALWD
Weston, C. H. (1995). Orenthal james simpson and gender, class, and race: In that
order. Hastings Women's L.J., 6(2), 223-232.

Chicago 7th ed.

Crystal H. Weston, "Orenthal James Simpson and Gender, Class, and Race: In That
Order," Hastings Women's Law Journal 6, no. 2 (1995): 223-232

McGill Guide 9th ed.

Crystal H Weston, "Orenthal James Simpson and Gender, Class, and Race: In That Order"
(1995) 6:2 span style='font-size:13px;'>Hspan>span style='font-size:10px;'>astings
span style='font-size:13px;'>Wspan>span style='font-size:10px;'>omen's U 223.

MLA 8th ed.

Weston, Crystal H. "Orenthal James Simpson and Gender, Class, and Race: In That
Order." Hastings Women's Law Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, 1995, p. 223-232. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Crystal H Weston, 'Orenthal James Simpson and Gender, Class, and Race: In That Order'
(1995) 6 span style='font-size:13px;'>Hspan>span style='font-size:10px;'>astings span
style='font-size:13px;'>Wspan>span style='font-size:10px;'>omen's LJ 223

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information

Use QR Code reader to send PDF to your smartphone or tablet device

 Orenthal James Simpson and Gender, Class, and
Race: In That Order
Crystal H. Weston*

Introduction
The O.J. Simpson trial is fascinating. I watch it every chance I get.
I watch it because it's entertaining; court is theater. I watch it because it's
educational; court is a procedural and evidentiary lesson. Also, I watch
it because I want to see how onlookers, as well as the legal system, treat
a wealthy, handsome, African male woman-beater who is on trial for
murder.
The trial-or should I say the O.J. Simpson Show-is multiply
appealing. After digesting the entertainment, however, we are left with an
unpleasant aftertaste. We are forced to contend with the sociological,
economic, and political issues that have created a climate in which Nicole
Brown Simpson could be repeatedly beaten by one of the most famous and
well-liked persons in the world and then murdered.
These issues are most commonly assessed in light of considerations of
gender, class, and race. Gender is the social construction of what is
"feminine" and "masculine," i.e., what the culture defines as female and
male. As with gender, race is also socially constructed. Like gender, race
is a convenient categorization based on physical and biological differences
between groups of people. Similarly, class is socially constructed; it hails
from the distribution of wealth based on a constructed economic system.
Class is used in this essay to refer to wealth-based societal positioning and
related phenomena.

* The author is the 1994-95 Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Fellow at the Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. She received a B.A. in 1990
from The City College of New York (City University of New York) and a J.D. in 1994
from the Northeastern School of Law. The author would like to thank third-year Hastings
student Robin Haaland, who invited her to write down and submit her thoughts on the O.J.
Simpson trial to Hastings Women's Law Journal. The author dedicates this essay to all
women and gay men who survive misogynist violence.

HASTINGS WOMEN'S LAW JOURNAL

 HASTINGS WOMEN'S LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 6:2

The media, trial pundits, and the general observing public have
identified race as the major issue in the O.3. Simpson trial. Many
observers have focused on the question of whether racist America will give
O.J. Simpson, a Black man, a fair trial for the murder of two White
people. More accurately, the focus of observers should be on whether
misogynist America will punish a man for murdering his former wife.
This essay will examine why gender should lead the analysis of the O.J.
Simpson trial, why class is the major co-star, and why race should be
considered only a supporting actor.
I. Gender and Misogynist Violence
Gender should be the controlling factor in the analysis of the Simpson
case, because, regardless of who actually carved the life out of Nicole, she
was a casualty of misogynist violence. Seventeen of her 35 years were
spent with a man who pummeled, belittled, and mistreated her to the point
where she became vulnerable to the sort of violent and abrupt demise that
she experienced. Due to the batteringand related violence that Nicole
experienced prior to her death, and because of the brutal way in which she
was murdered, race must be removed from its most-favored-issue status
and misogyny and patriarchy must be placed at the helm of the analysis,
where they rightfully belong.
Nicole's death took place in the context of what is commonly called
"domestic violence." The term "domestic violence" originally served as
a way to indicate the locale of the violence, i.e., in the home or related to
the home. Historically, however, the term has been used to privatize a
form of violence that is perpetrated-overwhelmingly by men-against
women, thus placing it outside the reach of the law.
I shun the use of the term "domestic violence," because it is an
oxymoron, a misnomer, and is dangerously euphemistic. It is an
oxymoron because the word "domestic" suggests sanctity, peace, and
safety. It suggests a happy chorus singing in your ear, "be it eeever so
huuumble, there's nooo place like hooome." Conversely. Webster's
Dictionary defines "violence" as an "exertion of physical force so as to
injure or abuse." "Violence" refers to a lack of safety or sanctity. The
words "domestic" and "violence" are incongruous.
The term "domestic violence" is also problematic because it easily
lends itself to other, more euphemistic terms that trivialize the "violence"
portion of the phenomenon. For example, I have heard physically and
emotionally abusive relationships referred to as relationships suffering from
"domestic discord." ' I have heard the term "a domestic incident" used

1. For instance, Johnnie Cochran used the phrase "domestic discord" throughout the
course of the trial so as to avoid the use of the word "violence" in relationship to O.J.
Summer 1995] IN THAT ORDER

to refer to a particular beating. These expressions remove "violence" from

the phenomenon entirely.
"Domestic violence" is a dangerous misnomer because this form of
violence is inflicted everywhere and anywhere, including outside of the
home. We know that the home is only one of the many locales in which
it occurs; so-called domestic violence can include abuse that extends far
beyond a one-on-one confrontation in one's abode with the curtains pulled.
This violence includes acts of public disrespect, verbal and emotional
abuse, the breaking of promises, the trivializing of abusive behavior, the
violation of trust, harassment, stalking, the social and emotional isolation
of the victim, and the assertion of economic control over the victim. This
trial has revealed that Nicole was physically attacked in the presence of
relatives and non-relatives and was audibly belittled in public.
I submit that we cease to refer to partner abuse or abuse that stems
from an intimate relationship as "domestic violence" and recognize it
instead as a lethal form of misogynist violence. In order to analyze and
combat this kind of abuse, it must be conceptualized in the context of the
misogynist violence that women experience every day in many forms: the
male gaze, sexually suggestive comments, unsolicited touches from
absolute strangers, and outright physical and verbal threats.
If trends continue, women are looking into a future that is as bleak as
their past. The statistics are startling: a woman is physically abused every
nine seconds;2 almost four million women are beaten by their male
partners every year;3 misogynist violence that stems from an intimate
relationship is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of
15 and 44, injuring more women than car accidents, muggings, and rapes
combined; 4 each month 50,000 women seek restraining or protective
orders;5 and women who leave their batterers are at a 75 % greater risk of
being killed by their batterers than those who stay.6 These statistics make
it very easy and natural for me to believe that O.J. Simpson murdered
Nicole.
Gender is the lens through which the O.J. Simpson trial should be
viewed because of the beatings that O.J. inflicted on Nicole throughout
their relationship and because of the tyrannical control he attempted to
assert over her life after their divorce. Of additional importance is the fact

Simpson. See, e.g., Margery Eagan, Key Defense Witness Fends Off Criticism, BOSTON
HERALD, Feb. 4, 1995, News see. at 6.
2. NEw YORK: THE COMMONWEALTH FUND, FIRST COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL
HEALTH SURVEY OF AMERICAN WOMEN (1993).
3. Id.
4. BATTERED WOMEN FIGHTING BACK!, INC., DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: THE FACTs 4
(1994).
5. Ms., September/October 1994, at 46.
6. BATTERED WOMEN FIGHTING BACK!, INC., supranote 4.
 HASTINGS WOMEN'S LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 6:2

that the law allowed O.J. to enjoy male-based privileges regarding his
relationship to Nicole for years before the murders.
Consider, for example, O.J.'s sentence for the 1989 New Year's Day
beating he inflicted on Nicole. He eventually pleaded no contest to a
charge of misdemeanor spousal battery but was not even required to appear
at his own sentencing. O.J. was sentenced to two years probation, was
required to undergo mandatory psychological counseling, was required to
perform 120 hours of community service, was forced to make a five
hundred dollar donation to a battered women's organization, and was
further fined two hundred dollars.
To the disbelief of most people, O.J.'s sentence for the 1989 beating
is typical for male batterers. He received the common (yet special)
treatment that all male batterers receive as a benefit of being a man in a
male-dominated criminal justice system that does not deem the beating of
women by men to be especially serious. This male privilege allowed O.J.
to be treated leniently in a case where, had Nicole been anyone other than
a family member and a woman, he would have likely been jailed for
battery. Instead, O.J. beat Nicole in 1989 with virtual impunity.
Nicole Brown Simpson's death should remind us that misogynist
violence is pervasive and is long overdue for its day in both the legal
courtroom and in the court of public opinion. Most survivors and victims
of abuse will never have their batterer's trial broadcast on CNN, but even
if they did, as in the case of Nicole Brown Simpson, the public would still
be told by the male-dominated legal system, media, and popular culture
that gender should take a back seat to race. As a consequence, battered
women will continue to suffer in fear, shame, and silence. Feminists and
progressive men must teach their regressive counterparts that women are
not property and that we are equal to men in all respects.

II. Privileges of Class: Wealth, Fame, and Beauty

The money factor is the current upon which O.J.'s Black maleness
rides. He may be Black, a least-favored-status in this nation, but he is also
rich, famous and male, three most-favored-statuses from which he benefits
greatly. Typically, Black men are afforded worse treatment by the
criminal justice system, and other social systems, than any other group.
For example, Black men are convicted of drug offenses at a much higher
rate than is proportionate to the number of Black men arrested for such

7. Bill Brubaker, Violence in FootballExtends OffField, WASHINGTON POST, Nov. 13,

1994, at Al.
Summer 1995] IN THAT ORDER

crimes.8 O.J., despite being a Black male, was insulated from this unfair
treatment by his class privilege.
The authorities treated O.J. very gently and respectfully after the
bodies of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson were found. It is
because he is a rich and famous man that O.J. was given the option to turn
himself in instead of having the police collect him at his home as they
would any other suspect. It was this option that allowed him to escape and
lead the police on the famed Ford Bronco slow-speed freeway "chase," or,
more accurately, a stately escort through southern California.
Once he was caught, or cooed into surrendering, O.J.'s wealth and
fame ensured that he was not charged with resisting arrest. Most
importantly, his wealth allowed him to purchase the best legal defense that
money could buy: the "Dream Team." Certainly, O.J.'s wealth and
celebrity status have brought him significantly more favorable treatment
than that afforded most people.
O.J. is also privileged because he is an athlete whose physical prowess
and charm have made him famous. O.J. is often referred to in the press
as a "hero," and Americans seem to assume that a certain athleticism and
material success lend themselves to upstanding moral character. They are
willing to give O.J. the benefit of the doubt not just because the law
requires us to presume his innocence until proven guilty, but because
Americans do not want to believe that this athletic, crossover marketing
device known as O.J. Simpson could possibly take the life of someone he
had been pounding on for over a decade and a half.
O.J. also benefits from his handsome face. It is common knowledge
both that physically attractive defendants receive more lenient sentences
than unattractive defendants, and that a defendant must be despised by the
public for a death penalty sentence to come to the fore. The prosecution
is not pursuing the death penalty for O.J., even though that sentence is
available for a charge of double murder. Not only is the American public
star-struck, but O.J.'s celebrity status and attractiveness seem to have
affected the Los Angeles prosecutors' choices as well.
O.J. has repeatedly benefited from the fact that he is a wealthy,
famous, and handsome man. The effect of the fact that he is a member of
a despised racial minority group has been negligible. There is no denying
that O.J. has successfully surpassed his "niggerdom."
O.1. grew from a life of poverty and disadvantage to become rich and
famous. He is living proof of America's mythological dream. American
society is not yet willing to incarcerate its rags-to-riches symbols of
American mythology, even symbols accused of killing two White people.

8. Louis Freedberg, New Jump in Rate of Incarcerationfor Black Males, SAN

FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Oct. 5, 1995, at Al.
 HASTINGS WOMEN'S LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 6:2

III. Race and Nationalism

While I have been writing this essay, White supremacy has legitimately
become an increasingly important player in O.J. Simpson's trial. Racism
permeates every aspect of American life and this trial is no different. The
pervasiveness of racism, however, does not give us license to ignore or
deny the equally life-steering roles of gender and class. As usual, though,
America's obsession with race, particularly with Black and White relations,
has allowed far too much of the analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial to be
race-based, even before the discovery of the tapes in which now-retired
Los Angeles Police Department Detective Mark Fuhrman refers to Black
people as "niggers" more than sixty times.
I agree that White folk, as a class, have not proven themselves worthy
of the trust of African people. This case alone has revealed institutional
racism in the form of Fuhrman. The entire Los Angeles Police Depart-
ment ("LAPD") is implicated by Fuhrman's hatefulness because, as an
institution, it has created a climate where Fuhrman could repeatedly plant
evidence, beat suspects, and harass citizens without consequence to his
career. Indeed, it is easy to believe both that if Fuhrman did not plant
evidence, then he probably exaggerated it, and that if the LAPD did not
conspire to frame Simpson, then they at least polluted the evidence,
making it more difficult for outsiders to discover the truth.
Nevertheless, I've grown weary of hearing the charges that O.J.
Simpson is being targeted because he's Black, and that his alleged
persecution is yet another in the line of recent racist attacks on famous
Black males, such as Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson, Clarence Thomas, and
Ben Chavis. It is no surprise to hear such defenses of O.J. from Black
men. They obviously feel the need to protect fellow men, who are Black
like themselves, regardless of what they do or are accused of doing. In the
context of an almost 500 year struggle for racial freedom, justice, and
equality in America, it is no surprise to hear Black women also blindly
defend Black men accused of heinous misogynist violence. Despite this
context, this defense is no less painful to my ears. In blindly defending
these Black men and demanding justice for race-based abuses only, and not
for gender-based abuses, we are participating in the belittling of our own
worth and safety.
Nonanalytical, allegiance based arguments are commonly known as
nationalist arguments. Nationalists refuse to entertain even the possibility
that the above-named brothers may have indeed committed the evil of
which they are accused, because the "nation" must appear unified, and we
must "protect" each other no matter how costly. Besides, the argument
goes, White people cannot be trusted.
Summer 1995] IN THAT ORDER
Summer 19951 IN THAT ORDER
With the recent exposure of Fuhrman as a racist liar, White supremacy
has, for the first time, become a legitimate focus of the Simpson trial.
Consequently, Black nationalist arguments are gaining more and more
credence. But the truth is that nationalists do not need Fuhrman-esque
characters in order to believe that a Black suspect should go free; the
accused's Blackness and the system's Whiteness, within the context of
racist America, are enough.
I must admit that I somewhat identify with this sentiment. There is a
part of me that feels that the White community could spare one White
woman as payback for all the bodies, minds, and souls that Black folk
continue to lose to racism every day in this hateful society. This part of
me feels that O.J. should not go to prison, even if he is guilty. Given the
long history of White supremacy in this country and the fact that Black
males are disproportionately incarcerated, an understandably vengeful
sentiment periodically emerges in everyday African people like me.
Despite this feeling, I usually return to my sense of fairness. I return to
my desire to see women's lives valued as much as those of men, a desire
afforded little room for expression within a nationalist politic.
Nationalism seeks to put the race or "nation" above individual
preservation and sound reasoning. White people have perfected this into
what is modernly known as White supremacy, or racism. The thought of
O.J.'s guilt is not entertained by most Africans because he is a fellow
member of the Black "nation." Nationalist arguments are narrow and
unproductive for Black folk and anyone else who employs them. They do
not exalt the Black nation, but exalt a very small group within that nation,
mainly heterosexually-perceived middle-class males. In other words,
nationalism, as it now exists in Black communities, exalts a Black version
of the patriarchal capitalist structure under which the rest of America
presently lives.
Nationalist dispositions are especially harmful to Black women. They
create a space in which Black men can be abusive and controlling of Black
women and children without their authority ever being questioned; this is
pure patriarchy. Consider the fact that, save for Michael Jackson, each of
the above-mentioned African men was accused of a violent physical or
psychological assault of a woman inthe form of either sexual harassment
or rape. Consider even further that all three of these famous cases
involved Black women. Would assaults by Black men in a world run by
Black men somehow be less painful? The readers of this essay who are
survivors of incest, rape, or partner abuse know the answer.
Patriarchy and misogyny continue to exist in all segments of American
society, as evidenced by the fact that misogynist violence is found in all
races, occupations, income levels, and ages. A nationalist disposition that
does not question the underlying patriarchal assumption of the Black male
 HASTINGS WOMEN'S LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 6:2

members of our "nation" is particularly destructive for African women,

but also undermines the entire Black nation. Consequently, this trial is not
only about seeking justice for one White woman but is also about ensuring
justice for Black folk who are not male, not heterosexually-perceived and
not middle class, i.e., for most of us.
Black women, specifically, must begin to first assess our lives through
a gender analysis, and then to assess it through a race analysis. We need
not worry that the race analysis will be neglected or forgotten. Popular
culture, both Black and White, will continue to insist that race dominate
all public discourse on difference at the expense of delegitimizing all other,
equally important, identity-based social ills. With a gender analysis in the
lead, race will dominate only where it should legitimately do so, and not
just because America is entertained by it.
We Black women must seriously examine our desire to live as whole
human beings. We will not survive if we continue to place one element
of our essence, namely race, far above our desire to fight for our dignity
as women, especially within the African community. If both elements do
not thrive, neither will we.

Conclusion
Though class and race are important in this saga, I want to stress that
it was a misogynist and indifferent culture that allowed O.J. to batter
Nicole for half of her life. It allowed O.J. to remain popular, unscathed,
and continually employed by two multinational corporations despite the
initially well-publicized 1989 beating of Nicole and other reported incidents
of his misogynist violence. It permitted employers, family, friends, and
neighbors to continually disregard opportunities to intervene. This culture
condones the male denial of a woman's right to physical, spiritual, and
economic safety. It is not only O.J. who is on trial, but the values of this
sick nation.
The Verdict 9
On October 3rd, 1995, Orenthal James Simpson received a verdict of
not guilty. As previously stated, I believe that O.J. is guilty and should
be punished accordingly. The prosecution was required, however, to
prove that O.J. committed the murders "beyond a reasonable doubt." The
defense did an excellent job of raising doubt by calling into question
Fuhrman and the evidence he came in contact with, the police and medical
examiner procedures, and the time period that was allegedly available for
O.J. to commit the murders. In short, the prosecution did not prove its

9. This final section was drafted after the verdict was handed down.
Summer 1995] IN THAT ORDER 231

case beyond a reasonable doubt, and O.J. obtained his "not guilty" verdict
fairly, i.e., pursuant to the rules. Whether or not justice has been served,
however, is questionable, even doubtful.
Race legitimately belonged in an analysis of the trial because of
Fuhrman, but race was allowed to dominate the trial analysis before the
appearance of Fuhrman because this culture does not take misogynist
violence seriously. Our society uses race as a smoke-screen to derail
legitimate analysis based on gender and class. This smoke-screen made it
easy for a contempt for White supremacy to aid misogyny in acquitting
O.L Simpson of the murders of his ex-wife and her friend.